Clinton spokesman circulates pro-Foundation talking points

Hillary Clinton is not happy with the recentspate of stories questioning the Clinton Foundation's fund-raising activities.

On Monday morning, in an email sent to allies in the Clinton orbit, her spokesman Nick Merrill circulated some helpful talking points.

Story Continued Below

"It’s been a little while since we’ve sent one of these, but given the attacks on the Clinton Foundation as of late, we wanted to send around some points in hopes that you will join us in defending the good work the Foundation does and will continue to do," he wrote. "Below are some points that we hope you can hit when talking to reporters, are on air, or even just with friends and people in your communities. As you’ve probably seen reading the stories in the last couple of weeks, there has been little mention of the good work the Foundation does, and that it is without a doubt a world-class philanthropy."

Merrill encouraged the email's recipients to visit the Clinton Foundation website to "learn more about the work," and included hyperlinks to the foundation's annual report, as well as several areas that the Foundation has focused on, including Haiti, global health, childhood obesity, and climate change.

Here are Merrill's suggesting talking points:

BHCCF Top-line Talking Points

• The Clinton Foundation is a philanthropy, period. They receive contributions from around the world, because they're doing groundbreaking, life-changing work around the globe.

• These contributions are important because they are responsible for millions of people getting access to life-saving HIV/AIDs treatment, more than 40,000 farmers in Malawi, Tanzania, and Rwanda improving their incomes by more than 500 percent; 33,500 tons of greenhouse gas emissions being reduced annually across the U.S.; supporting the Clinton Global Initiative whose members have made nearly 3,100 Commitments to Action to improving more than 430 million lives around the world and so much more. The list goes on.

• Let’s remember why journalists are able to dig through all these records. Because unlike many other similar charities, the Foundation voluntarily discloses all of its contributors' names, right on the Clinton Foundation website. And it refuses to take anonymous contributions. No charity is required to do these, but the Clinton Foundation does it, on its own accord.

• As a result of that transparency, The Wall Street Journal was able to spend 9 months digging through all of this looking for signs of conflict and impropriety. Their conclusion? That, and I’m quoting here, “There is no evidence of that with the Clinton Foundation.” The Washington Post and The Guardian said the same thing in their stories. It’s a less sexy conclusion, but you’ll find it buried in these stories.

• Something else you won’t find? Anyone questioning the fact that the Clinton Foundation's work has improved the lives of millions across the globe. But you don’t hear them saying it either. And it’s important that doesn’t get lost in all of this, because it’s the most important part.

• It’s a false choice to suggest people can’t support political causes or candidates and also care about philanthropy and making a difference in the world.

• Without these contributions, it's clear what would have happened – fewer people would have access to affordable HIV/AIDS medication; fewer people would have access to clean water; fewer economic opportunities would be made available in developing communities in nations across Africa, Asia, and South; and fewer children in the US would have access to healthy foods.

• The Clinton Foundation is constantly re-evaluating its practices to ensure it runs as efficiently, effectively, and as transparently as possible. And it has said it will re-evaluate its contributor practices if Secretary Clinton runs, just as was done when she became Secretary of State.

• The bottom line: The ability to fund the Foundation is the ability to improve the lives of millions of people across the world. And while it’s appropriate to raise questions to ensure that money is being used as efficiently as possible to achieve its mission, it’s just as important to acknowledge that after much scrutiny, and when you cast aside those whose goal it is to make political hay, that this is a philanthropy, widely recognized as a successful one, and it does an enormous amount of good that the people who founded it and work there should be nothing but immensely proud of. Period.

Additional Points

• Almost all charities depend on outside support whether it's your local non-profit one or a global philanthropy.

• The work of the Clinton Foundation is effective, which is why it has bipartisan support from places like News Corporation, Chris Ruddy of NewsMax, and counts among its contributors and CGI participants President George H.W. Bush, Laura Bush, Condi Rice, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Carly Fiorina, and dozens of governors and mayors from both sides of the aisle.

• Every penny of the money Algeria donated for Haiti went to help Haiti. People forget about the outpouring of support for those debased by the earthquake and the need to get money and supplies there quickly. The United Nations asked President Clinton to head Haiti relief and encouraged countries to support the effort. President Bush partnered with WJC to set up the Bush-Clinton Haiti Fund in part because the Clinton Foundation had an expertise in addressing such challenges efficiently and effectively - as they previously did with the Tsunami is SE Asia.

• People are trying to make this political forget the human toll of HIV/AIDs or earthquakes or that as governments have fewer resources around the world. That’s exactly where NGO’s need to step into the void to help improve people's lives. When people call for the donations to be returned, they are dismissing the fact that lives will be affected, even lost.